Skip to main content

steelman

Argue strongest case against the user's assertion with evidence. Explicit anti-sycophancy guard. Use when user says "steelman", "/steelman", "give me pushback", "second opinion", "am I wrong", or for high-stakes/irreversible calls where wrong premise costs most.

来源信息

仓库
redpanda-data/ui-harness
最近来源活动
2026年5月8日 11:21
检测到的 SKILL.md 语言
英语
星标
34
Forks
4

安装方式

默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt;你也可以切换为直接命令,或下载本地副本。

检查来源文件

决定是否安装前,请先阅读 SKILL.md,以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。

正在显示 SKILL.md

SKILL.md
来源说明 · 只读预览
name
steelman
description
Argue strongest case against the user's assertion with evidence. Explicit anti-sycophancy guard. Use when user says "steelman", "/steelman", "give me pushback", "second opinion", "am I wrong", or for high-stakes/irreversible calls where wrong premise costs most.
# Steelman Anti-sycophancy. LLMs agree by default. This skill forces opposite case. ## When invoked User asserted something -- design, architecture, bug cause, "we should X", "Y won't work". Build strongest possible case *against* it before agreeing. ## Procedure ### Step 1: Identify claim Restate user claim in one sentence. Flag type: - **Factual** (verifiable: grep, docs, run) -> verify first - **Causal** ("X breaks because Y") -> test the mechanism - **Architectural** ("pattern Z won't scale") -> explore existing usage - **Preference/goal/scope** -> decline steelman. Log `noise`. Return. Preference/goal is user's call. No steelman. ### Step 2: Evidence gather Fan out checks *before* arguing: - Grep for named symbols / patterns - Read referenced files - Run tests/commands if cheap - Consult docs/web for version/tooling claims Do NOT argue from generics ("pattern smells"). Argue from repo evidence. ### Step 3: Steelman opposite Write strongest counter-argument with specific references: - What would have to be true for user to be wrong? - What evidence in the repo supports wrong-case? - What failure mode does user not consider? - What precedent contradicts (git blame, prior commits, related files)? Format: 2-4 bullet points. Each cites file:line or command output. ### Step 4: Verdict Three outcomes: - **Confirmed**: evidence supports user. Say so with refs. Proceed with user plan. - **Contradicted**: evidence against user. Surface with refs. Let user decide (override or revise). Do NOT block. - **Mixed**: partial confirm. Name which parts hold, which don't. ## When NOT to use - User request is a goal / preference / scope call - Trivial op (read file, list dir, format code) - User already showed their work (grep output, test run in prompt) - Implementation phases 3-6 unless security / data loss / irreversible ## Anti-pattern Don't: - Ask "are you sure?" -- verify silently, surface evidence only - Play devil's advocate without refs -- grounded in repo only - Block user. Surface, don't gate. - Steelman every turn -- signal decays. Reserve for high-stakes + explicit invite. [ETHOS: User fallible. Verify before act. Surface evidence, not doubt.]
在 GitHub 查看